HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-14DRAFT
MINUTES OF AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, June 14, 2000 at 4 p.m.
A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re of the Orange County Sanitation District was
held on Wednesday, June 14, 2000 at 4 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office.
(1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows:
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Directors Present:
Jan Debay, Chair of the Board
Don Bankhead
Guy Carrozza
Peter Green
Directors Absent:
Shawn Boyd
Brian Donahue
(2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM
No appointment was necessary.
(3) AGENDA
OTHERS PRESENT:
Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel
STAFF PRESENT:
Blake Anderson, General Manager
David Ludwin, Director of Engineering
Bob Ooten, Director of O&M
Gary Streed, Director of Finance
Mike Moore, ECM Manager
Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager
Dierdre Hunter, Environmental Specialist
Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary
The agenda was posted in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section
54954.2.
(4) PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
(5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR
Chair Debay did not make a report.
(6) REPORTOFTHEGENERALMANAGER
FILED
IN THE OP::ICE OF THE SECRETARY
ORANGE COUNTY S,W:,:\l:UN DISTRIG1
~ 28 2000
IW _ r (,
General Manager Blake Anderson provided the Committee members with a summary of what
happened at Huntington Beach during the summer of 1999. The document will be submitted to CASA
for consideration as part of its awards program.
OCSD • P.O. Box 8127 • Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 • (714) 962-2411
Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
Page 2
June 14, 2000
Mr. Anderson introduced the staff members who will be providing support to the Ad Hoc Committee
during its deliberations.
(7) DISCUSSION ITEMS
(8)
A. Staff report on Existing Situation
Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager, provided information on the Huntington Beach
1999 beach closure experience; ongoing diversion activities from 1999 to present;
ongoing initiatives by other agencies; key features of existing adopted Sanitation District
Board policy on acceptance of diversions; and fee options previously proposed to the
Steering Committee. Ms. Talebi also announced that the County of Orange has requested
that five more diversions be connected to the District's system, which could bring the total
estimated volume to 8-1 O mgd. The major concern at this time is what impact any
pesticides in the diverted flow may have on the District's treatment process. It was stated
that at this time the volume of diverted flow has not impacted the District's operations.
B. Committee-led Discussion
The policy implications of the fee options to cover costs of diversions were discussed.
General Counsel Tom Woodruff indicated that it was very difficult to get state funding
though it could be done with legislative approval. The Coastal Commission has indicated
that two developments (Hearthside Homes in Balsa Chica and The Irvine Company South
Coast development) must control urban runoff. It appears that diverting these flows to the
District's system is the most practical, though paying for the treatment of flow has yet to be
determined. The costs for connecting to the system are being paid for by the applicants.
At this time no capital costs are assigned.
The five identified options were also discussed, including the evaluation of impacts on the
agency's operations and maintenance processes and quality of ocean discharge. If the
diverted flow exceeds 10 mgd there could be problems with the treatment processes.
The major questions that the Committee members will be addressing are: 1) should there
be a charge for these diversion connections; 2) who pays it; and 3) how is the program
financed.
Staff was directed to begin discussions with the County of Orange on taking over the
program along with the financing. Chair Debay asked staff to get an update from the
County on what they are doing in the Santa Ana River regarding the berms in the Newport
Shores area.
OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY
There were no other business, communications or supplemental agenda items.
'
I Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
Page 3
June 14, 2000
(9) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A
SUBSEQUENT MEETING
There were none.
(10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
ACTION and STAFF REPORT
(11) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next Ad Hoc Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 12, 2000 at 4 p.m. A third
meeting has been set for Wednesday, August 2 at 4 p.m., which will include dinner.
(12) ADJOURNMENT
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
appan
oc Committee Secretary
H:\wp.dta\admin\GM\Adhoc-00\Urban Runoff Policies and Financing\061400 Minutes.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss .
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, I hereby certify that the Notice
and the Agenda for the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
meeting held on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, was duly posted for public inspection in the main
lobby of the District's offices on Thursday, June 8, 2000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of June, 2000.
Posted: June 8, 2000 , , ___ p.m.
By:
wpdoc\gm\str-comm\posting.fm
\
I
\
AGENDA
MEETING OF THE
BOARD SECRET ARY (2)
AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF DIVERSION POLICY AND FINANCING
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
WEDNESDAY. JUNE 14, 2000. AT 4 P,.M,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
1) ROLL CALL
2) APPOINTMENT OF OHAIR PRO TEM. IF NECESSARY
3) AGENDA
In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this
agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative Office not less than 72
hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda
item are available for public inspection in the office of the Board Secretary.
In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Committee
for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2{b) as an
emergency item or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the
attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a
supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
4) PUBLIC COMMENTS
All persons wishing to address the Ad Hoc Committee on specific agenda items or matters of
general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chair, speakers may be
deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five
minutes.
Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot
have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2{b).
5)
6)
7)
June 14, 2000
REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR
REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER
DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A -C)
A. Staff report on existing situation
• Huntington Beach's 1999 beach closure experience
• Ongoing diversion activities from 1999 to present
• Ongoing initiatives by other agencies
• Key features of existing adopted Sanitation District Board policy on acceptance
of diversions
• Fee options previously proposed to Steering Committee
B. Committee-led discussion
• Policy implications of fee options to cover costs of diversions
• Initial Identification (if possible) of options most favorable to committee
• Direction to staff
C. Set schedule for following meetings
8) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF
ANY
9) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A
SUBSEQUENT MEETING
10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA
FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT
11) FUTURE MEETING DATES
The next meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Strategic Planning will be at the call of the Chair.
12) ADJOURN
-2-
June 14, 2000
13) NOTICE TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS
If you have any questions on the agenda or wish to place items on the agenda, Committee
members should contact the Committee Chair or the Secretary ten days in advance of the
Committee meeting:
Committee Chair:
Secretary:
jt
Jan Debay
Jean Tappan
(949) 644-3004 (City Hall)
(714) 593-7101
(714) 962-0356 (Fax)
E-mail: jtappan@ocsd.com
H:\WP.DTAIADMIN\GMIADHOC·00\URBAN RUNOFF POLICIES AND FINANCING\060600 AGENDA.DOC
-3-
AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF DIVERSION POLICY and FINANCING
Meeting Date: June 14. 2000 Time: 4 p.m.
Adjourn: _____ _
DIRECTORS
JAN DEBAY, CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ..... __
DON BANKHEAD, DIRECTOR .............................................. __
SHAWN BOYD, DIRECTOR .................................................. __
GUY CARROZZO, DIRECTOR ......................... '. ................... __
BRIAN DONAHUE, DIRECTOR ............................................ __
PETER GREEN, DIRECTOR ................................................. __
OTHERS
TOM WOODRUFF, GENERAL COUNSEL. .......................................... __
STAFF
BLAKE ANDERSON, GENERAL MANAGER ....................................... __
DAVID LUDWIN, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING ............................... __
GARY STREED, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. ......................................... __
BOB GHIRELLI, DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES .................. __
MIKE MOORE, ECM MANAGER ........................................................... __
MAHIN TALEBI, SOURCE CONTROL MANAGER ............................... __
JEAN TAPPAN, COMMITTEE SECRETARY ........................................ __
---------········· .. ······· ................................................ .
---------······················· .. ··········· .............................. .
---------·········································--·· .. ····· .............. .
H:lwp.dta\admin\GM\Adhoc·00\Urban Runoff Policies and Financing\060600 Roll Call Master.doc
C: Lenora Crane
\
I AD HOC COMMITTEE
AGENDA REPORT
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services
Originator: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager
SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
6/14/00
Item Number Item Number
7.A.
This is for information only. Staff anticipates that the issues of urban runoff diversion
funding and policies will be discussed in two or three (perhaps as many as four)
meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee over the next 30 to 60 days. Staff will provide an
increasing array of information in an iterative process that, hopefully, leads to
recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee to the Board of Directors through the
Steering Committee.
SUMMARY
Dry weather urban runoff diversions to the District's sanitary sewer system are
underway. There are a number of them in Huntington Beach. There is one in Newport
Beach. There are others proposed in the Bolsa Chica and Crystal Cove areas of the
County. We anticipate that others will be proposed in our portions of our service area
during the next several years.
The Board has adopted a policy for accepting these diversions. Staff has been working
with the County of Orange, the Cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and land developers for the last year, to develop
sensible practices for protecting public health from the impacts of dry weather urban
runoff. There is wide spread community, business and institutional support for keeping
Orange County's beaches open for recreational uses. Our challenge is to develop
policies and practices that will achieve this objective for the least possible long-term
cost to the rate payers in Orange County.
Two major questions remain unanswered. How large a fee should the District charge
and who should pay the fee? These questions were considered by the May 2000
Steering Committee. It became clear to the Steering Committee that arriving at the best
answers to these questions is not easy. For this reason, the Steering Committee asked
the Board Chairman to form an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the broad policy
implications that a fee implies. The Steering Committee recommended that the Ad
Hoc Committee evaluate the policy and financial issues associated with urban runoff
diversions, and make recommendations to the Board of Directors via the Steering
Committee.
The Board Chairman has selected a committee of six board members:
C:ITEMP\Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Agenda Form 6·00.dot
Revised: 8/10/98 Page 1
• to discuss the wide range of options that are available to the Sanitation
District Board of Directors, and
• to develop recommendations that best meet the long-term interests of the
District and the broad range of community interests that occur within our
service area.
The fees that may be charged will be dependent upon what operational and capital
costs can be assigned to the water that is diverted into our system. There are a number
of technical assumptions that will underpin this determination. Staff will describe these
assumptions to the Ad Hoc Committee at this and future meetings.
The decision about who pays will rest upon such things as whose runoff water is it, who
is most responsible for the contaminated condition of the runoff, who accrues the
benefits of the improved public health protection and who is ready and willing to pay.
As you will discover, the answers to these questions are not always straightforward.
They are further complicated by secondary issues such as incentivizing best-
management practices, limiting access to our sanitary system, and maintaining
consistent compliance with the terms and conditions of our ocean discharge permit.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
To be reported later.
BUDGET IMPACT
D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
D This item has not been budgeted.
[8J Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
See attached information.
ALTERNATIVES
To be described later.
CEQA FINDINGS
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report -Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
H:\wp.dta\ts\3590\talebl\Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Agenda Form 6-00.dol
Revised: 8/10/98 Page2
June 8, 2000
STAFF REPORT
Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
BACKGROUND
In the past, the District has managed its facilities to prevent the discharge of urban runoff and storm water
to the sewer system. The results of last summer's Huntington Beach closure investigation suggested that
the dry season urban runoff may have caused the shoreline contamination, which led us in a new
direction. As a result, the District agreed to reroute the dry weather urban runoff from four pump stations
in the City of Huntington Beach to the sewer system in late August 1999.
In December 1999, the Board of Directors approved an interim policy for acceptance of dry season urban
runoff to the sewer system on a temporary basis. Shortly after adoption of the interim policy, the District
received two additional requests seeking the District's approval to s,ewer dry season urban runoff on a
long-term basis from proposed housing developments in Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. These
requests were prompted by the California Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board
due to potential water quality impacts and beach closures that could result from the direct discharge of
this runoff.
In April 2000, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. OCSD 00-04 (attached) for acceptance of
dry season urban runoff into the District's sewer system on a long-term basis. The intent of the resolution
was based on the fact that: 1) the acceptance of the dry season urban runoff was appropriate to minimize
adverse water quality environmental impacts, and 2) there was an immediate need to adopt a long-term
policy to accommodate the public need. The provisions of the resolution also intended to protect the
District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary wastewater to the sewer
system. The resolution includes the following provisions:
• Requires applicant to obtain a discharge permit;
• Requires exclusion of storm runoff during wet weather events;
• Requires evaluation of other disposal options;
• Requires guarantee that the District receives payment of all monies due;
• Authorizes denial of discharge request if it adversely affects the District's operations;
• Requires applicant to indemnify and hold the District harmless from all liabilities; and
• Authorizes enforcement actions, if full compliance is not met.
As mentioned above, the resolution requires that the applicant "pay all applicable fees and charges
including permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges and non-compliance fees". At the
OMTS meeting in April 2000, while approving the adoption of the urban runoff policy, the Board of
Directors directed the staff to develop a fee and charge schedule for the dry season urban runoff
discharges to the District's sewer facilities.
In May 2000, staff provided the Steering Committee five alternatives (attached) for assessing fees for dry
season urban runoff discharges. In summary, the alternatives are:
Daily Charges $/MGD Total Daily
Alternative Description Connection Fee User Fee Charges
$/MGD
1 Class I industry rates, including 5% interest $661 $321 $982
2 Class I industry rates, excluding interest $337 $321 $658
3 Class I industry O/M (user) rates only -$321 $321
4 Divide budget O/M by budget flow $591 $585 $1,176
5 Same as dewatering permit $682 $1,433 $2,115
Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Policy and Financing
Page2
June 8, 2000
After a discussion of these alternatives and related issues, the Board of Directors recommended that an
Ad Hoc Committee be formed to evaluate the impacts of such discharges and make recommendations to
the Steering and FAHR committees for adoption of this policy.
ONGOING DIVERSION ACTIVITIES
Since August 1999, the District has accepted dry season urban runoff from nine pump stations in the City
of Huntington Beach and from one pump station in Newport Beach (Newport Dunes). In addition, the
District has received requests from housing developers and the County of Orange to discharge dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system. The following provides a summary of current and proposed
urban runoff discharges to the District's sewer system:
Applicant/Permittee Location Number of Daily Discharge Status Diversl.ons Ve>lume (MGD)
Huntington Beach Huntington Beach 9 2.0-2.5 Discharging
Newport Beach Newport Dunes 1 0.1-0.2 Discharging
Irvine Company Newport Beach 1 0.1-0.2 Proposed
Hearthside Homes Huntington Beach 1 0.1-0.2 Proposed
County of Orange Huntington Beach 3 2.5-3.0 Proposed
4.8,-6.1
Currently, the County of Orange is seeking the District's authorization to divert runoff of about 0.5 MGD
from the Santa Ana River channel upstream of Talbert Avenue into the District's sewer system as early as
mid-June 2000.
CURRENT ISSUES
There are several factors that may have adverse or unknown impacts on the District's facilities and
resources:
1. We do not have historical data on the quality (specifically pesticides) of the dry season urban
runoff to determine the impact of such discharges on the District's final effluent and permit
compliance.
2. Depending on the long-term/short-term acceptance of the urban runoff to the sewer system, the
future and projected urban runoff flows cannot be estimated accurately. Therefore, the impact on
the District's strategic plan projections of treatment capacity needs and the Groundwater
Replenishment System cannot be determined at this time.
3. Depending upon the total volume and quality of the urban runoff discharged to the sewer, the
charges and staff resources needed to handle and manage such discharges may be significant.
4. To ensure equity among dischargers in the District's jurisdiction and recover the cost incurred to
treat and manage the urban runoff flows, a policy regarding the applicable fees and charges
needs to be formulated.
MT
H:\wp.dta\ts\3590\talebi\staff report for urban runoff fees.doc
RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 00-04
ESTABLISHING DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF POLICY
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ESTABLISHING DRY SEASON
URBAN RUNOFF POLICY -----
WHEREAS, certain types of dry season urban runoff create public health and/or
environmental problems which are infeasible to economically or practically control; and,
WHEREAS, THE Orange County Sanitation District ("District") has available
limited system capacity in its collection, treatment and disposal facilities which may
allow the District to accept certain dry season urban runoff discharges without adversely
affecting the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary
sewer discharges; and
WHEREAS, the District does not have system capacity available to allow wet
season discharges to the District's facilities; and
WHEREAS, District has developed a Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy to address
certain environmental concerns associated with dry season runoff; and,
WHEREAS, District may accept dry season urban runoff, on a permanent basis,
provided that the discharge occurs in full and complete compliance with the terms of the
District's Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation
District,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1 : That the following Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy is established
as a District Policy:
POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM
The Orange County Sanitation District ("District") may accept surface urban runoff into
the sewerage system only during the period of April 15 through October 31 of each year
("dry season urban runoff") and only if the following requirements are met:
l
utions\2000\00-
District's primary function. No additional dry season urban runoff permits shall be
issued if the General Manager, or his designee, determines that such issuance
may, alone or in conjunction with other permits, adversely affect the District's
primary function;
9. Permit applicants shall pay a permit fee in an amount established by the District
prior to the issuance of any permit;
10. Prior to commencement of discharge of the dry season urban runoff to the
sewerage system, in accordance with the policies and procedures set by the
District, the permit applicant must apply for and receive a Wastewater Discharge
Permit from the District. The District may require that the permit applicant enter
into an agreement setting forth the terms under which the dry season discharge
is authorized in addition to or in lieu of issuance of the Wastewater Discharge
Permit; and
11. The permit applicant shall indemnify and hold the District harmless from all
liability associated with the dry season urban runoff to which the permit and/or
agreement apply. The terms of the indemnification shall be in a form satisfactory
to District's General Counsel;
B. Requirements After Granting Permission to Discharge
1 . The quality and quantity of the discharge shall meet the conditions, provisions or
limitations contained in the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations
(Ordinance No. OCSD-01 )*;
2. The permittee shall conduct self-monitoring for the pollutants of concern as direct
by the District to ensure compliance with the terms, conditions and limits set forth
in the discharge permit and/or agreement and the District's Ordinances. Unless
otherwise directed, the ·permittee shall conduct self-monitoring of the discharge
on a quarterly basis. The result of all self-monitoring shall be submitted to the
District, upon request, but in no event later than forty-five (45) days following the
completion of sample analysis. The permittee shall monitor the flow and submit
reports documenting the flow discharged as directed by the District;
3. In the event that the quality or quantity of the dry season urban runoff discharge
to the sewerage system does not meet the conditions, provisions, or limitations
set forth in the discharge permiUagreement or Ordinance No. OCSD-01, the
permittee shall take immediate action to correct the problem(s) to ensure that full
compliance is met. The District may take enforcement action for any violation of
the terms of the permit and/or the District's Ordinances, including termination of
the discharge, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. OCSD-01;
• Any reference in this policy to any Di~:.trict Ordinance, policy or permit shall include any subsequent
amendments, modificati0ns, re~isions c;r successors to such ordinance, policy or permit.
3
utions\2000\00-
,,
' ~
STEERING COMMil 1E
AGENDA REPORT
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Gary Streed, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: URBAN RUNOFF CHARGES
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
This item will be discussed at the June FAHR Committee meeting.
SUMMARY
Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
05/24/00 N/A
Item Number
When the final Urban Runoff Policy was considered by the OMTS Committee in April,
they deferred the charges and fees to the FAHR Committee. Five alternatives are
discussed in the Staff Report.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
N/A
BUDGET IMPACT
D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
[gj This item has not been budgeted. D Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
See Staff Report.
ALTERNATIVES
See Staff Report.
CEQA FINDINGS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report
2. April 5, 2000 Agenda Report to OMTS
3. Resolution OCSD-00-04 Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
\\radon\data 1 lwp.dtalfin\21 O\crane\STEERING COMMITTEEIARUrban Runoff .doc
Revised: 8/20198 Page 1
May 15, 2000
STAFF REPORT
Alternative Fees for Ory Season Urban Runoff
In April 2000, the Board adopted Resolution No. OCSD-00-04, Establishing Dry
Season Urban Runoff Policy. This Resolution requires a Wastewater Discharge
Permit be issued by the District in accordance with all applicable Ordinances. It
also requires the permittee to "pay all the applicable fees and charges including
but not limited to permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges and
non-compliance fees." The exact type of Permit to be issued is not specified.
Two types of Wastewater Discharge Permits may be appropriate under the
current regulations, or a new type of Permit may be required. A Class I Permit is
required for "any user who discharges wastewater that averages 25,000 gallons
per day or more of regulated process wastewater, or is determined by the
General Manager to have a reasonable potential to adversely affecting the
Districts' operation or for violating pretreatment standard, local limit or discharge
requirements ... " Certainly this language applies to dry weather urban runoff.
Were it not for the health risks and beach water standard violations, we would not
even be considering the issue. A Special Purpose Discharge Permit is required
for the discharge of "unpolluted water, storm runoff, or groundwater. .. " This
may also apply.
What should be charged?
The fee structure is different for each of these Permits, and a different structure
could be developed for a new type of Permit. Class I users pay a fee based
upon actual flow and strength of their wastewater discharge. The rates per
million gallons and pounds of BOO or SS are adopted by Ordinance. These
rates are used in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on the attached schedule. BOD and SS
concentrations and pounds are expected to be minimal for urban runoff, resulting
in a user fee of $321.40 per million gallons.
Class I users who discharge more than 25,000 gallons per day are called
"Significant Commercial-Industrial Users" (SCIU). These SCI Us are subject to a
Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge (SCFCC) based upon actual
use when their flow increases 25% or 25,000 gallons per day. Because the initial
Capital Facilities Capacity Charge for a regular non-residential user is calculated
based upon the square feet of the building connecting to the system, there is no
method to calculate an accurate charge in these cases. The SCFCC, however,
presents a reasonable Alternative. The SCFCC could be calculated using a zero
mgd baseline.
Alternative Fees for [ Weather UR
Page2
May 15, 2000
Alternative 1 includes the SCFCC calculation, in accordance with the adopted
Ordinance. The capital, connection or SCFCC rate would be $660.95 per million
gallons. This Alternative includes a 5% cost of money charge, since the facilities
used must be constructed before the fees are received. The operating user fee
is consistent in each of the three Alternatives.
Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 except the cost of money, or interest,
component has been removed. This reduces the capital portion of the fee to
$336.60 per million gallons.
Alternative 3 eliminates the capital portion of the charge altogether, leaving only
the $321 .40 per million gallons operating user fee. Applying this Alternative may
require a change to the CFCC Ordinance. In order to select this Alternative, the
Directors would have to find that there is adequate capacity in the sewerage
system, during dry weather, for this wastewater. In this case, one could conclude
that since no additional facilities are required, then no CFCC should be
assessed. This is the lowest cost Alternative, and is consistent with the interim
Special Purpose Discharge Permit issued to Huntington Beach in October 1999.
Alternative 4 is an entirely different approach to determining the fees. This
method allocates the operating budget and the 20-year capital requirements to
flow alone. No costs or expenses are allocated to BOD or SS. This Alternative
provides higher unit costs than Alternative 1, 2 or 3, and should be discarded.
Alternative 5 treats Dry Season Urban Runoff as any other Special Purpose
Discharge Permit. The adopted Ordinance specifies a charge for use to cover all
costs of the District for providing sewerage service and monitoring shall be
established by the General Manager. Historically, this has been an operating
user fee of 1.5 times the "Class Ill" user rate. The Class Ill rate typically reflected
domestic waste concentrations. District policy is to discourage these types of
permits because the flow generally is "clean water" which does not require
treatment and should be discharged to a storm drain, not to a sewage treatment
plant. The operating user fee is the highest of any Alternative. The Ordinance is
not clear about a CFCC for this type of user. Potential calculations could be the
same as presented in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Another method of calculating the
CFCC would be to allocate the single-family dwelling unit fee to assumed gallons
per day. This method is presented in this Alternative. Because the operating
user fee is so high, any of the CFCC Alternatives result in this Alternative having
the highest total rate. It is shown as a comparison to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and
to show the change that results from another provision of the existing adopted
Ordinances.
Alternative Fees for · -Weather UR
Page 3
May 15, 2000
Who should pay?
Once the appropriate rates for collection, treatment and disposal of Dry Season
Urban Runoff are established, we must determine who should pay. Alternatives
include the OCSD ratepayers, the agency that owns the connecting facility, the
Flood Control District, and the County of Orange.
The OCSD ratepayers are charged for sewer service. The Strategic Plan and
the operations budget are based upon projected wastewater flows. Facilities
have not been planned for urban runoff. The April staff report to OMTS and the
Board that accompanied the Resolution establishing a Dry Season Urban Runoff
Policy identified a potential flow of 20 mgd. More information is needed to know
the precise financial impact of this additional treatment and disposal, but it is
reasonable to conclude that this 4% increase in flow could require a 4% increase
in user fees. Currently, that would amount to about $3 per year per SFR. In the
event that property taxes are diverted away from the OCSD, perhaps taxes
sufficient to meet this non-sewage related regional need could be retained.
The agency that owns the facility connecting to the sewer normally pays the fees
and charges. This would be the preferred Alternative, if all of the runoff
originates within that agency's service area, or if costs could be recovered from
outside sources. ~~ ~ o.._P (k~Ulf1--
e Flood Control Dist_ri 1s responsible for flood control channels and their
dt ar e tot n. Runoff is intended to be collected by the flood control
system. This seems to be the logical choice for responsibility for the urban runoff
fees as well. The Flood Control District could put a fee on the property tax bill as
a separate line item, similar to our user fee. The fee could be based upon
acreage and would be approximately $9 per acre or $2 per SFR. ~-----
The County of Orange may be essentially the same as t Flood Control District.
Both provide services to areas larger than the OCSD. Botti eot1te--eeive.1QOLaPJa
and a program for the entire County. The County Board of Supervisors has
already shown interest in this issue. They may have the most diverse and
flexible sources of income to meet this critical environmental need.
GGS:lc
H:\wp.dta\fin\210\crane\STEERING COMMITTEE\UrbanRunoff.doc
Attachments:
1. Alternative Fees for Urban Runoff Pump Stations
2. Staff Report -Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff
3. Resolution OCSD-04 Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
05/12/2000
Alt Description
1 Class I rates incl 5% interest
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
2 Ctass I rates without interest
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
55 @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
3 Class I O & M rates only
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
4 Divide budget O&M by budget flow
Divide 2020 capital invest by total flow for 30 years
5 Same as dewatering permit, 1.5 times "Class Ill"
SFR Connection Fee on per gallon basis
G:\excel. dta\fin\21 0\streed\run off fees
Alternative Fees for Urban Runoff Pump Stations
Capital and O&M Costs
Charge per Million Gallons
A B C D
OCSD Daily OCSD Daily Daily
Unit of Measure Conn Rate Use Rate Total/unit
per gal per day 0.0005700 0.00021931 0.0007893
per lb per day 0.1446100 0.18045000 0.3250600
per lb per day 0.1602500 0.17265000 0.3329000
per gal per day 0.0002900 0,00021931 0.0005093
per lb per day 0.0741000 0.18045000 0.2545500
per lb per day 0.0821100 0.17265000 0.2547600
per gal per day 0. 0000000 0. 00021931 0.0002193
per lb per day 0.0000000 0.18045000 0.1804500
per lb per day 0.0000000 0.17265000 0.1726500
per gal per day 0.000584729 0.0005847
per gal per day 0.0005914 0.0005914
per gal per day 0.00143329 0.0014333
per gal per day 0.000682224 0.0006822
4:21 PM
E F G H
Daily Daily Daily Total Daily
Units Conn Fee Use Fee Char!i!e
1,000,000 570.00 219.31 789.31
167 24.12 30.10 54.2?
417 66.82 72.00 138.l
660.95 321 .40 982.35
1,000,000 290.00 219.31 509.31
167 12.36 30.10 42.46
417 34.24 72.00 106.23
336.60 321.40 658.00
1,000,000 -219.31 219.31
167 -30.10 30.10
417 -72.00 72.00
-321.40 321 .40
1,000,000 --584.73 584.r
1,000,000 591.45 -591.45
591.45 584.73 1,176.18
1,000,000 -1,433.29 1,433.29
1,000,000 682.22 -682.22
682.22 1,433.29 2,115.51
One Rate
March 27, 2000
STAFF REPORT
POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Results of the Huntington Beach closure investigation suggested that the dry season urban
runoff discharging to the Pacific Ocean through the Talbert Channel may have caused or
contributed to the cause of the shoreline contamination that occurred in the summer of 1999.
As a result, the District agreed to reroute the dry weather urban runoff from four pump stations
in the City of Huntington Beach to the sewer system in August 1999. Historically, the District
has managed its facilities to prevent the discharge of dry season urban runoff and storm water
to the sewer system. Therefore, it has never been included in the District's mission nor practice
to accept discharge of this type of waste into the sewerage facilities. The events of last summer
at Huntington Beach are leading us in a new direction.
The District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations regulates all discharges into the District's
sewerage facilities. These regulations do not currently include a provision to authorize any dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system. On December 15, 1999, the Board of Directors
approved an· interim policy for acceptance an~ discharge of dry season urban runoff to the
sewer system on a temporary basis. Since the adoption of the interim policy, the District has
received requests from The Irvine Company and Hearthside Homes, Inc. to discharge dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system from proposed housing developments in Newport
Beach-and Huntington Beach. These requests were prompted based on discharge requirements
of the California Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board due to potential
water quality impacts and beach closures that could result from the direct discharge of this
runoff.
Since the District's interim policy was adopted for a period of only one year, regulatory agencies
questioned the developers about the time period during which the District would accept the dry
season urban runoff. The California Coastal Commission has indicated that without a
permanent policy in place to accept the dry season urban runoff in lieu of direct discharge into
the ocean, permission to construct will not be granted. Based on the available testing results
and information, the bacteria counts· in dry season urban runoff have the potential to exceed
Ocean Water Protection Standards by 10-20 times. The total dry season urban runoff from
ea9h developer is estimated at 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD), and the levels of known toxics
such as heavy metals are similar to those found in domestic sewage. Moreover, the bacteria
counts in the runoff are significantly lower than the typical influent bacteria counts we now
receive in the District's influent.
District's staff proposes to revise the interim policy and establish a long-term resolution for
disposal of dry season urban runoff to the sewer system because: 1) the acceptance of the dry
season urban runoff is fundamentally appropriate to minimize the possible adverse
environmental impact, and 2) there is an immediate need to adopt a long-term policy to
accommodate the public needs.
'
Policy for Acceptance of Ory Weather Urban Runoff
Page 2 of 3
March 27, 2000
OTHER AGENCIES' PRACTICES
The District has contacted six neighboring wastewater agencies to research their practice of
accepting urban runoff discharges to their sewer facilities. Based on the information obtained,
none of the agencies has established any written policy, fees or characteristic requirements
regarding dry season urban runoff. They are accepting urban runoff or storm water when it is
contaminated, on an occasional, case-by-case basis. The City of Los Angeles is already
accepting dry season urban runoff from two areas (Malibu and Santa Monica) without any
policy, discharge requirements or fees in place.
PROPOSED POLICY
The District's staff believes that the acceptance of the dry season urban runoff to the sewer
system will reduce the levels of contaminants along the Southern California shoreline and
enhance public health and environmental quality.
The revised policy includes many of the same provisions contained in the interim policy and new
provisions to protect the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of
sanitary sewer discharges to the sewer system. Under the proposed policy, the District will only
accept certain types of dry season urban runoff during the period of April 15 to October 31 of
each year. In summary, the proposed policy includes the following provisions to:
• Require the applicant to exclude storm runoff during wet weather events;
• Require the applicant to evaluate other disposal options and implement pollution prevention
measures;
• Require·the applicant to·guarantee that the District receives payment of all monies due for
the collection, treatment and disposal of dry season urban runoff;
• Authorize ·staff to deny the request and to not issue a discharge permit if such issuance
adversely affects the District's operations;
• Require the applicant to indemnify and hold the District hannless from all liabilities; and
• Authorize staff to take enforcement actions, including termination of the discharge if full
compliance with the conditions of the District's Ordinance and discharge pennit are not met.
CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED POLICY
Although the proposed policy contains provisions to protect the District's operations and enable
the District to ensure compliance with all the regulatory requirements, there are concerns the
staff has encountered which, due to lack of information at this time, cannot be fully addressed.
• Concern: The types and levels of all pollutants of concern such as pesticides contained in
urban run off are unknown at this time. Therefore, the possible impact of accepting the dry
season urban runoff discharge to sewer and on the District's effluent is not fully known.
Response: There are provisions in the proposed policy to require the discharger to
periodically monitor its discharge into the sewer system and to take corrective measures to
control or eliminate the pollutants of concern or to reduce the loading to the sewer system.
The proposed policy also includes provisions authorizing staff to take enforcement actions
including termination of the discharge.
Page 3 of 3
March 27, 2000
• Concern: At this time, the District cannot accurately project the future collective volume
the dry season urban runoff discharges to the sewer system. The District also has limite
existing and future system capacity in the collection, treatment and disposal facilities.
Therefore, depending upon the future collective volume of these types of discharges, th1
District may not have an adequate system capacity to accommodate the future volume 1
the urban runoff discharged to the Districfs sewerage facilities without substantial expa,
of sewerage facilities.
Response: Today, the estimated total flow from Huntington Beach and the two develop
is about 1.2 MG0. Future runoff volume may increase to 10 MGD from the potential
applicants in the District's jurisdiction. This volume is about 4 percent of the District's tot
influent of 245 MGD. The District believes that there is adequate overall system capaci~
accommodate this volume. Moreover, there are .provisions in the proposed policy to req·
the discharger to implement pollution prevention including recycling, reuse and reductio1
the volume of the discharge. In addition, the proposed policy authorizes the staff to den:
issuance of a permit and terminate the discharge or require additional waste managemE
facilities to be installed by the discharger if the discharge threatens to adversely impact
District's facilities.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE POLICY
If this policy is adopted, to ensure that there would not be any recognizable adverse impact
the District's sewerage facilities, staff will commence close monitoring of the urban runoff
discharges to the sewer system and accumulate quality and quantity data currently not
available. After sufficient information is obtai(1ed over the next few years, staff will revisit tht
provisions of the policy and will recommend necessary adjustments to conform to the findin
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the attached Resolution No. OCSD 00
which !".!~~des the proposed Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff Into the
Orange County Sanitation District Sewerage System. If the Board of Directors adopts this
policy, staff further recommends that the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations, whic
currently under review by staff, include in the next revision the elements of the policy adopt
the Board of Directors.
MTL:lvw
H:\wp.dta\ls\3590\talebi\Agenda for runoff.doc
1
•
Page 3 of 3
March 27, 2000
• Concern: At this time, the District cannot accurately project the future collective volume of
the dry season urban runoff discharges to the sewer system. The District also has limited
existing and future system capacity in the collection, treatment and disposal facilities.
Therefore, depending upon the future collective volume of these types of discharges, the
District may not have an adequate system capacity to accommodate the future volume of
the urban runoff discharged to the District's sewerage facilities without substantial expansion
of sewerage facilities.
Response: Today, the estimated total flow from Huntington Beach and the two developers
is about 1.2 MGD. Future runoff volume may increase to 10 MGD from the potential
applicants in the District's jurisdiction. This volume is about 4 percent of the District's total
influent of 245 MGD. The District believes that there is adequate overall system capacity to
accommodate this volume. Moreover, there are provisions in the proposed policy to require
the discharger to implement pollution prevention including recycling, reuse and reduction in
the volume of the discharge. In addition, the proposed policy authorizes the staff to deny the
issuance of a permit and terminate the discharge or require additional waste management
facilities to be installed by the discharger if the discharge threatens to adversely impact the
District's facilities.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE POLICY
If this policy is adopted, to ensure that there would not be any recognizable adverse impact on
the District's sewerage facilities, staff will commence close monitoring of the urban runoff
discharges to the sewer system -and accumulate quality and quantity data currently not
available. After sufficient information is obtained over the next few years, staff will revisi't the
provisions of the policy and will recommend necessary adjustments to conform to the findings.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the attached Resolution No. OCSD 00-_
which in~~des the proposed Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff Into the
Orange County Sanitation District Sewerage System. If the Board of Directors adopts this
policy, staff further recommends that the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations, which is
currently under review by staff, include in the next revision the elements of the policy adopted by
the Board of Directors.
MTL:lvw
H:\wp.dta\ts\3590\talebi\Agenda for runoff.doc
June 22, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Director Don Bankhead
Director Shawn Boyd
Director Jan Debay
Director Guy Carrozzo
Director Brian Donahue
Director Peter Green
FROM: Jean Tappan
Executive Assistant to General Manager
BOARD SECRET ARY (2)
SUBJECT: Re-printed Agenda Item from the June 14, 2000 Ad Hoc Committee re
Urban Runoff Diversion Permit and Financing Meeting
Enclosed is the re-printed agenda item from the last meeting that includes the missing
pages.
Again, please accept our apology.
And, as a reminder, the next meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee is scheduled for July 12
at 4 p.m.
r ,
AD HOC COMM ITTEE
AGENDA REPORT -
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services
Originator: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager
SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
6/14/00
Item Number Item Number
7.A.
This is for information only. Staff anticipates that the issues of urban runoff diversion
funding and policies will be discussed in two or three (perhaps as many as four)
meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee over the next 30 to 60 days. Staff will provide an
increasing array of information in an iterative process that, hopefully, leads to
recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee to the Board of Directors through the
Steering Committee.
SUMMARY
Dry weather urban runoff diversions to the District's sanitary sewer system are
underway. There are a number of them in Huntington Beach. There is one in Newport
Beach. There are others proposed in the Bolsa Chica and Crystal Cove areas of the
County. We anticipate that others will be proposed in our portions of our service area
during the next several years.
The Board has adopted a policy for accepting these diversions. Staff has been working
with the County of Orange, the Cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and land developers for the last year, to develop
sensible practices for protecting public health from the impacts of dry weather urban
runoff. There is wide spread community, business and institutional support for keeping
Orange County's beaches open for recreational uses. Our challenge is to develop
policies and practices that will achieve this objective for the least possible long-term
cost to the rate payers in Orange County.
Two major questions remain unanswered. How large a fee should the District charge
and who should pay the fee? These questions were considered by the May 2000
Steering Committee. It became clear to the Steering Committee that arriving at the best
answers to these questions is not easy. For this reason, the Steering Committee asked
the Board Chairman to form an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the broad policy
implications that a fee implies. The Steering Committee recommended that the Ad
Hoc Committee evaluate the policy and financial issues associated with urban runoff
diversions, and make recommendations to the Board of Directors via the Steering
Committee.
The Board Chairman has selected a committee of six board members:
C:ITEMP\Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Agenda Form 6-00 dot
Revised: 8/10/98 Page 1
• to discuss the wide range of options that are available to the Sanitation
District Board of Directors, and
• to develop recommendations that best meet the long-term interests of the
District and the broad range of community interests that occur within our
service area.
The fees that may be charged will be dependent upon what operational and capital
costs can be assigned to the water that is diverted into our system. There are a number
of technical assumptions that will underpin this determination. Staff will describe these
assumptions to the Ad Hoc Committee at this and future meetings.
The decision about who pays will rest upon such things as whose runoff water is it, who
is most responsible for the contaminated condition of the runoff, who accrues the
benefits of the improved public health protection and who is ready and willing to pay.
As you will discover, the answers to these questions are not always straightforward.
They are further complicated by secondary issues such as incentivizing best-
management practices, limiting access to our sanitary system, and maintaining
consistent compliance with the terms and conditions of our ocean discharge permit.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
To be reported later.
BUDGET IMPACT
D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
D This item has not been budgeted.
fZI Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
See attached information.
ALTERNATIVES
To be described later.
CEQA FINDINGS
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report -Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
H:\wp.dtalts\3590\talebi\Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Agenda Form 6-00.dol
Revised: 8/10/98 Page2
June 8, 2000
STAFF REPORT
Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
BACKGROUND
In the past, the District has managed its facilities to prevent the discharge of urban runoff and storm water
to the sewer system. The results of last summer's Huntington Beach closure investigation suggested that
the dry season urban runoff may have caused the shoreline contamination, which led us in a new
direction. As a result, the District agreed to reroute the dry weather urban runoff from four pump stations
in the City of Huntington Beach to the sewer system in late August 1999.
In December 1999, the Board of Directors approved an interim policy for acceptance of dry season urban
runoff to the sewer system on a temporary basis. Shortly after adoption of the interim policy, the District
received two additional requests seeking the District's approval to s.ewer dry season urban runoff on a
long-term basis from proposed housing developments in Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. These
requests were prompted by the California Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board
due to potential water quality impacts and beach closures that could result from the direct discharge of
this runoff.
In April 2000, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. OCSD 00-04 (attached) for acceptance of
dry season urban runoff into the District's sewer system on a long-term basis. The intent of the resolution
was based on the fact that: 1) the acceptance of the dry season urban runoff was appropriate to minimize
adverse water quality environmental impacts, and 2) there was an immediate need to adopt a long-term
policy to accommodate the public need. The provisions of the resolution also intended to protect the
District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary wastewater to the sewer
system. The resolution includes the following provisions:
• Requires applicant to obtain a discharge permit;
• Requires exclusion of storm runoff during wet weather events;
• Requires evaluation of other disposal options;
• Requires guarantee that the District receives payment of all monies due;
• Authorizes denial of discharge request if it adversely affects the District's operations;
• Requires applicant to indemnify and hold the District harmless from all liabilities; and
• Authorizes enforcement actions, if full compliance is not met.
As mentioned above, the resolution requires that the applicant "pay all applicable fees and charges
including permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges and non-compliance fees". At the
OMTS meeting in April 2000, while approving the adoption of the urban runoff policy, the Board of
Directors directed the staff to develop a fee and charge schedule for the dry season urban runoff
discharges to the District's sewer facilities.
In May 2000, staff provided the Steering Committee five alternatives (attached) for assessing fees for dry
season urban runoff discharges. In summary, the alternatives are:
Daily ChargJts $/MGD Total Daily
Alternative Description Connection Fee User Fee Charges
$/MGD
1 Class I industry rates, including 5% interest $661 $321 $982
2 Class I industry rates, excluding interest $337 $321 $658
3 Class I industry O/M (user) rates only --$321 $321
4 Divide budget O/M by budget flow $591 $585 $1,176
5 Same as dewatering permit $682 $1,433 $2,115
Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Policy and Financing
Page2
June 8, 2000
After a discussion of these alternatives and related issues, the Board of Directors recommended that an
Ad Hoc Committee be formed to evaluate the impacts of such discharges and make recommendations to
the Steering and FAHR committees for adoption of this policy.
ONGOING DIVERSION ACTIVITIES
Since August 1999, the District has accepted dry season urban runoff from nine pump stations in the City
of Huntington Beach and from one pump station in Newport Beach (Newport Dunes). In addition, the
District has received requests from housing developers and the County of Orange to discharge dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system. The following provides a summary of current and proposed
urban runoff discharges to the District's sewer system:
Applicant/Permittee Location Number of Dally Discharge Status Diversions Vol.ume (MGD)
Huntington Beach Huntington Beach 9 2.0-2.5 Discharging
Newport Beach Newport Dunes 1 0.1-0.2 Discharging
Irvine Company Newport Beach 1 0.1-0.2 Proposed
Hearthside Homes Huntington Beach 1 0.1-0.2 Proposed
County of Orange Huntington Beach 3 2.5-3.0 Proposed
4.8-6.1
Currently, the County of Orange is seeking the District's authorization to divert runoff of about 0.5 MGD
from the Santa Ana River channel upstream of Talbert Avenue into the District's sewer system as early as
mid-June 2000.
CURRENT ISSUES
There are several factors that may have adverse or unknown impacts on the District's facilities and
resources:
1. We do not have historical data on the quality (specifically pesticides) of the dry season urban
runoff to determine the impact of such discharges on the District's final effluent and permit
compliance.
2. Depending on the long-term/short-term acceptance of the urban runoff to the sewer system, the
future and projected urban runoff flows cannot be estimated accurately. Therefore, the impact on
the District's strategic plan projections of treatment capacity needs and the Groundwater
Replenishment System cannot be determined at this time.
3. Depending upon the total volume and quality of the urban runoff discharged to the sewer, the
charges and staff resources needed to handle and manage such discharges may be significant.
4. To ensure equity among dischargers in the District's jurisdiction and recover the cost incurred to
treat and manage the urban runoff flows, a policy regarding the applicable fees and charges
needs to be formulated.
MT
H:\wp.dta\ts\3590\talebi\staff report for urban runoff fees.doc
RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 00-04
ESTABLISHING DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF POLICY
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ESTABLISHING DRY SEASON
URBAN RUNOFF POLICY -----
WHEREAS, certain types of dry season urban runoff create public health and/or
environmental problems which are infeasible to economically or practically control; and,
WHEREAS, THE Orange County Sanitation District ("District") has available
limited system capacity in its collection, treatment and disposal facilities which may
allow the District to accept certain dry season urban runoff discharges without adversely
affecting the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary
sewer discharges; and
WHEREAS, the District does not have system capacity available to allow wet
season discharges to the District's facilities; and
WHEREAS, District has developed a Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy to address
certain environmental concerns associated with dry season runoff; and,
WHEREAS, District may accept dry season urban runoff, on a permanent basis,
provided that the discharge occurs in full and complete compliance with the terms of the
District's Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation
District,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1 : That the following Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy is established
as a District Policy:
POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM
The Orange County Sanitation District ("District") may accept surface urban runoff into
the sewerage system only during the period of April 15 through October 31 of each year
("dry season urban runoff') and only if the following requirements are met:
1
utions\2000\00-
A. Requirements for Obtaining Permission to Discharge
1. The dry season urban runoff diversion to the sewerage system shall address a
public health or environmental problem associated with the runoff discharge that
cannot be otherwise economically or practically controlled;
2. The dry season urban runoff diversion structure shall be designed and other
necessary provisions shall be implemented to exclude storm runoff during wet
weather. The diversion structure shall be equipped with a lockable shut-off
device, satisfactory to the District, and to which the District shall be provided
access at all times;
3. The permit applicant shall consider and evaluate the feasibility of other disposal
alternatives (i.e., discharging into storm drains, reuse and reclamation of the
runoff, etc.) for the discharge of the dry season urban runoff. The permit
applicant shall submit to the District a report, satisfactory to the District describing
the evaluation of each disposal alternative, and demonstrating why each
alternative is not economically or practically feasible to dispose of the proposed
dry season urban runoff in lieu of sewer discharge;
4. The permit applicant's proposed diversion system shall prevent debris or any
other pollutants of concern from entering the District's sewerage system. The
permit applicant shall submit design drawings and an operations and
maintenance plan for the proposed dry season diversion structure which shall be
sufficient to establish that all District requirements will be met to prevent pass
through of and/or interference with the District's sewerage facilities. The
diversion system shall be capable of measuring and recording on a daily basis
the flow discharged to the sewerage system;
5. The permit applicant shall submit best management practices and pollution
prevention strategies designed to minimize or eliminate dry season urban runoff.
More stringent practices and strategies may be required depending on the nature
of the anticipated discharge;
6. The permit applicant shall submit to the District a proposed method to guarantee
the existence of an enforceable mechanism to ensure that the District receives
payment for all monies due pursuant to this policy for as long as the permit
exists. No permit application shall be complete without such an enforceable
mechanism, satisfactory to the District in its sole discretion. This mechanism
shall be designed to limit any administrative burden on the District;
7. The General Manager, or his designee, may impose additional requirements as
may be appropriate to reduce the burden on the District's collection, treatment
and disposal facilities;
8. Collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary sewer discharges remain the
2
utions\2000'-DO-
•
District's primary function. No additional dry season urban runoff permits shall be
issued if the General Manager, or his designee, determines that such issuance
may, alone or in conjunction with other permits, adversely affect the District's
primary function;
9. Permit applicants shall pay a permit fee in an amount established by the District
prior to the issuance of any permit;
10. Prior to commencement of discharge of the dry season urban runoff to the
sewerage system, in accordance with the policies and procedures set by the
District, the permit applicant must apply for and receive a Wastewater Discharge
Permit from the District. The District may require that the permit applicant enter
into an agreement setting forth the terms under which the dry season discharge
is authorized in addition to or in lieu of issuance of the Wastewater Discharge
Permit; and
11. The permit applicant shall indemnify and hold the District harmless from all
liability associated with the dry season urban runoff to which the permit and/or
agreement apply. The terms of the indemnification shall be in a form satisfactory
to District's General Counsel;
B. Requirements After Granting Permission to Discharge
1 . The quality and quantity of the discharge shall meet the conditions, provisions or
limitations contained in the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations
(Ordinance No. OCSD-01 )*;
2. The permittee shall conduct self-monitoring for the pollutants of concern as direct
by the District to ensure compliance with the terms, conditions and limits set forth
in the discharge permit and/or agreement and the District's Ordinances. Unless
otherwise directed, the ·permittee shall conduct self-monitoring of the discharge
on a quarterly basis. The result of all self-monitoring shall be submitted to the
District, upon request, but in no event later than forty-five (45) days following the
completion of sample analysis. The permittee shall monitor the flow and submit
reports documenting the flow discharged as directed by the District;
3. In the event that the quality or quantity of the dry season urban runoff discharge
to the sewerage system does not meet the conditions, provisions, or limitations
set forth in the discharge permiUagreement or Ordinance No. OCSD-01, the
permittee shall take immediate action to correct the problem(s) to ensure that full
compliance is met. The District may take enforcement action for any violation of
the terms of the permit and/or the District's Ordinances, including termination of
the discharge, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. OCSD-01;
• Any reference in this policy to any District Ordinance, policy or permit shall include any subsequent
amendments, modificati0ns, re~isions c:;r successors to such ordinance, policy or permit.
3
utions\2000\00-
4. In accordance with Ordinance Nos. OCSD-01, OCSD-10, and OCSD-11, and
any other current or future District Ordinances or policies, the permittee shall pay
all the applicable fees and charges including but not limited to permit fees, sewer
use charges, capital facilities charges, and noncompliance fees. Failure to pay
any fees in a timely manner shall be cause for termination of the permit and
discharge;
5. The permittee shall provide District's employees with access to the diversion
location and all areas from which and through which runoff originates and/or
flows, during all reasonable hours, which shall include any time when a discharge
to the sewer system may be occurring, for purposes of inspection, monitoring,
and verifying compliance with the discharge permit/agreement or the District's
Ordinances;
6. The permittee shall have complete responsibility for the construction, operation
and maintenance of the diversion facility or any other associated facilities, for
ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions of the discharge
permit/agreement and the District's Ordinances, and for paying all the applicable
charges and fees for the entire duration of the discharge to the District's
sewerage system;
7. All District administrative costs related to the implementation of this policy shall
be borne by the permittee;
8. If the District determines that the dry season runoff, alone or in conjunction with
other discharges, is adversely affecting or threatening to adversely affect the
District's collection, treatment and/or disposal facilities, the District shall so notify
the permittee who shall immediately cease all such discharge to the sewerage
system. The District may, in its sole discretion, allow the continued discharge
provided that the permittee installs, operates and maintains additional facilities as
the District determines are appropriate to ensure that the dry season runoff does
not, alone or in conjunction with other discharges, adversely affect or threaten to
adversely affect the District's collection treatment and/or disposal facilities; and
9. Except as expressly authorized by this policy or a District Ordinance, no urban
runoff shall be discharged directly or indirectly into the District's facilities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held April 26, 2000.
4
utions\2000~0-
STEERING COMMil 1E
AGENDA REPORT
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Gary Streed, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: URBAN RUNOFF CHARGES
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
This item will be discussed at the June FAHR Committee meeting.
SUMMARY
Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
05/24/00 N/A
Item Number
When the final Urban Runoff Policy was considered by the OMTS Committee in April,
they deferred the charges and fees to the FAHR Committee. Five alternatives are
discussed in the Staff Report.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
N/A
BUDGET IMPACT
D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
~ This item has not been budgeted.
D Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
See Staff Report.
ALTERNATIVES
See Staff Report.
CEQA FINDINGS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report
2. April 5, 2000 Agenda Report to OMTS
3. Resolution OCSD-00-04 Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
llradonldata1\wp.dtalfinl210\cranelSTEERING COMMITTEEIARUrban Runoff.doc
Revised: 8/20/98 Page 1
May 15, 2000
STAFF REPORT
Alternative Fees for Dry Season Urban Runoff
In April 2000, the Board adopted Resolution No. OCSD-00-04, Establishing Dry
Season Urban Runoff Policy. This Resolution requires a Wastewater Discharge
Permit be issued by the District in accordance with all applicable Ordinances. It
also requires the permittee to "pay all the applicable fees and charges including
but not limited to permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges and
non-compliance fees." The exact type of Permit to be issued is not specified.
Two types of Wastewater Discharge Permits may be appropriate under the
current regulations, or a new type of Permit may be required. A Class I Permit is
required for "any user who discharges wastewater that averages 25,000 gallons
per day or more of regulated process wastewater, or is determined by the
General Manager to have a reasonable potential to adversely affecting the
Districts' operation or for violating pretreatment standard, local limit or discharge
requirements ... " Certainly this language applies to dry weather urban runoff.
Were it not for the health risks and beach water standard violations, we would not
even be considering the issue. A Special Purpose Discharge Permit is required
for the discharge of "unpolluted water, storm runoff, or groundwater. .. " This
may also apply.
What should be charged?
The fee structure is different for each of these Permits, and a different structure
could be developed for a new type of Permit. Class I users pay a fee based
upon actual flow and strength of their wastewater discharge. The rates per
million gallons and pounds of BOD or SS are adopted by Ordinance. These
rates are used in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on the attached schedule. BOD and SS
concentrations and pounds are expected to be minimal for urban runoff, resulting
in a user fee of $321.40 per million gallons.
Class I users who discharge more than 25,000 gallons per day are called
"Significant Commercial-Industrial Users" (SCIU). These SCI Us are subject to a
Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge (SCFCC) based upon actual
use when their flow increases 25% or 25,000 gallons per day. Because the initial
Capital Facilities Capacity Charge for a regular non-residential user is calculated
based upon the square feet of the building connecting to the system, there is no
method to calculate an accurate charge in these cases. The SCFCC, however,
presents a reasonable Alternative. The SCFCC could be calculated using a zero
mgd baseline.
Alternative Fees for [ Weather UR
Page 2
May 15, 2000
Alternative 1 includes the SCFCC calculation, in accordance with the adopted
Ordinance. The capital, connection or SCFCC rate would be $660.95 per million
gallons. This Alternative includes a 5% cost of money charge, since the facilities
used must be constructed before the fees are received. The operating user fee
is consistent in each of the three Alternatives.
Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 except the cost of money, or interest,
component has been removed. This reduces the capital portion of the fee to
$336.60 per million gallons.
Alternative 3 eliminates the capital portion of the charge altogether, leaving only
the $321 .40 per million gallons operating user fee. Applying this Alternative may
require a change to the CFCC Ordinance. In order to select this Alternative, the
Directors would have to find that there is adequate capacity in the sewerage
system, during dry weather, for this wastewater. In this case, one could conclude
that since no additional facilities are required, then no CFCC should be
assessed. This is the lowest cost Alternative, and is consistent with the interim
Special Purpose Discharge Permit issued to Huntington Beach in October 1999.
Alternative 4 is an entirely different approach to determining the fees. This
method allocates the operating budget and the 20-year capital requirements to
flow alone. No costs or expenses are allocated to BOD or SS. This Alternative
provides higher unit costs than Alternative 1, 2 or 3, and should be discarded.
Alternative 5 treats Dry Season Urban Runoff as any other Special Purpose
Discharge Permit. The adopted Ordinance specifies a charge for use to cover all
costs of the District for providing sewerage service and monitoring shall be
established by the General Manager. Historically, this has been an operating
user fee of 1.5 times the "Class Ill" user rate. The Class Ill rate typically reflected
domestic waste concentrations. District policy is to discourage these types of
permits because the flow generally is "clean water" which does not require
treatment and should be discharged to a storm drain, not to a sewage treatment
plant. The operating user fee is the highest of any Alternative. The Ordinance is
not clear about a CFCC for this type of user. Potential calculations could be the
same as presented in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Another method of calculating the
CFCC would be to allocate the single-family dwelling unit fee to assumed gallons
per day. This method is presented in this Alternative. Because the operating
user fee is so high, any of the CFCC Alternatives result in this Alternative having
the highest total rate. It is shown as a comparison to Alternatives 1 , 2 and 3 and
to show the change that results from another provision of the existing adopted
Ordinances.
Alternative Fees for ' -Weather UR
Page 3
May 15, 2000
Who should pay?
Once the appropriate rates for collection, treatment and disposal of Dry Season
Urban Runoff are established, we must determine who should pay. Alternatives
include the OCSD ratepayers, the agency that owns the connecting facility, the
Flood Control District, and the County of Orange.
The OCSD ratepayers are charged for sewer service. The Strategic Plan and
the operations budget are based upon projected wastewater flows. Facilities
have not been planned for urban runoff. The April staff report to OMTS and the
Board that accompanied the Resolution establishing a Dry Season Urban Runoff
Policy identified a potential flow of 20 mgd. More information is needed to know
the precise financial impact of this additional treatment and disposal, but it is
reasonable to conclude that this 4 % increase in flow could require a 4 % increase
in user fees. Currently, that would amount to about $3 per year per SFR. In the
event that property taxes are diverted away from the OCSD, perhaps taxes
sufficient to meet this non-sewage related regional need could be retained.
The agency that owns the facility connecting to the sewer normally pays the fees
and charges. This would be the preferred Alternative, if all of the runoff
originates within that agency's service area, or if costs could be recovered from
outside sources.
---------1v ~ ~ ~ fk~uv~-
e Flood Control Distr" 1s responsible for flood control channels and their
d1 ar e tot n. Runoff is intended to be collected by the flood control
system. This seems to be the logical choice for responsibility for the urban runoff
fees as well. The Flood Control District could put a fee on the property tax bill as
a separate line item, similar to our user fee. The fee could be based upon
acreage and would be approximately $9 per acre or $2 per SFR. ~-----
The County of Orange may be essentially the same as t Flood Control District.
Both provide services to areas larger than the OCSD. Botti C01ttta-&e~10pi_a.pJa1
and a program for the entire County. The County Board of Supervisors has
already shown interest in this issue. They may have the most diverse and
flexible sources of income to meet this critical environmental need.
GGS:lc
H:\wp.dta\fin\210\crane\STEERING COMMITTEE\UrbanRunoff.doc
Attachments:
1. Alternative Fees for Urban Runoff Pump Stations
2. Staff Report -Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff
3. Resolution OCSD-04 Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
05/12/2000
Alt Description
1 Class I rates incl 5% interest
2
3
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
Class I rates without interest
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
Class I O & M rates only
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
4 Divide budget O&M by budget flow
Divide 2020 capital invest by total flow for 30 years
5 Same as dewatering permit, 1.5 times "Class 111"
SFR Connection Fee on per gallon basis
G:\excel.dta\fin\210\streed\run off fees
Alternative Fees for Urban Runoff Pump Stations
Capital and O&M Costs
Charge per Million Gallons
A 8 C D
OCSD Daily OCSD Daily Daily
Unit of Measure Conn Rate Use Rate Total/unit
per gal per day 0.0005700 0.00021931 . 0.0007893
per lb per day 0.1446100 0.18045000 0.3250600
per lb per day 0.1602500 0.17265000 0.3329000
per gal per day 0,0002900 0.00021931 0.0005093
per lb per day 0.0741000 0.18045000 0,2545500
per lb per day 0.0821100 0.17265000 0.2547600
per gal per day 0.0000000 0.00021931 0.0002193
per lb per day 0.0000000 0.18045000 0.1804500
per lb per day 0. 0000000 0.17265000 0.1726500
per gal per day 0.000584729 0.0005847
per gal per day 0.0005914 0.0005914
per gal per day 0.00143329 0.0014333
per gal per day 0.000682224 0.0006822
4:21 PM
E F G H
Daily Daily Daily Total Daily
Units Conn Fee Use Fee Charge
1,000,000 570.00 219.31 789.31
167 24.12 30.10 54.2?
417 66.82 72.00 138.l
660.95 321 .40 982.35
1,000,000 290.00 219.31 509.31
167 12.36 30.10 42.46
417 34.24 72.00 106.23
336.60 321.40 658.00
1,000,000 -219.31 219.31
167 . 30.10 30.10
-417 . 72.00 72.00 -321.40 321.40
1,000,000 -584.73 sa4.r
1,000,000 591.45 -591.45
591 .45 584.73 1,1 76.18
1,000,000 -1,433.29 1,433.29
1,000,000 682.22 -682.22
682.22 1,433.29 2,1 15.51
One Rate
March 27, 2000
STAFF REPORT
POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Results of the Huntington Beach closure investigation suggested that the dry season urban
runoff discharging to the Pacific Ocean through the Talbert Channel may have caused or
contributed to the cause of the shoreline contamination that occurred in the summer of 1999.
As a result, the District agreed to reroute the dry weather urban runoff from four pump stations
in the City of Huntington Beach to the sewer system in August 1999. Historically, the District
has managed its facilities to prevent the discharge of dry season urban runoff and storm water
to the sewer system. Therefore, it has never been included in the District's mission nor practice
to accept discharge of this type of waste into the sewerage facilities. The events of last summer
at Huntington Beach are leading us in a new direction.
The District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations regulates all discharges into the District's
sewerage facilities. These regulations do not currently include a provision to authorize any dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system. On December 15, 1999, the Board of Directors
approved an interim policy for acceptance and discharge of dry season urban runoff to the
sewer system on a temporary basis. Since the adoption of the interim policy, the District has
received requests from The Irvine Company and Hearthside Homes, Inc. to discharge dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system from proposed housing developments in Newport
Beach and Huntington Beach. These requests were prompted based on discharge requirements
of the California Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board due to potential
water quality impacts and beach closures that could result from the direct discharge of this
runoff.
Since the District's interim policy was adopted for a period of only one year, regulatory agencies
questioned the developers about the time period during which the District would accept the dry
season urban runoff. The California Coastal Commission has indicated that without a
permanent policy in place to accept the dry season urban runoff in lieu of direct discharge into
the ocean, permission to construct will not be granted. Based on the available testing results
and information, the bacteria counts in dry season urban runoff have the potential to exceed
Ocean Water Protection Standards by 10-20 times. The total dry season urban runoff from
eaoh developer is estimated at 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD), and the levels of known toxics
such as heavy metals are similar to those found in domestic sewage. Moreover, the bacteria
counts in the runoff are significantly lower than the typical influent bacteria counts we now
receive in the District's influent.
District's staff proposes to revise the interim policy and establish a long-term resolution for
disposal of dry season urban runoff to the sewer system because: 1) the acceptance of the dry
season urban runoff is fundamentally appropriate to minimize the possible adverse
environmental impact, and 2) there is an immediate need to adopt a long-term policy to
accommodate the public needs.
'l
Policy for Acceptance of Dry Weather Urban Runoff
Page 2 of 3
March 27, 2000
OTHER AGENCIES' PRACTICES
The District has contacted six neighboring wastewater agencies to research their practice of
accepting urban runoff discharges to their sewer facilities. Based on the information obtained,
none of the agencies has established any written policy, fees or characteristic requirements
regarding dry season urban runoff. They are accepting urban runoff or storm water when it is
contaminated, on an occasional, case-by-case basis. The City of Los Angeles is already
accepting dry season urban runoff from two areas (Malibu and Santa Monica) without any
policy, discharge requirements or fees in place.
PROPOSED POLICY
The District's staff believes that the acceptance of the dry season urban runoff to the sewer
system will reduce the levels of contaminants along the Southern California shoreline and
enhance public health and environmental quality.
The revised policy includes many of the same provisions contained in the interim policy and new
provisions to protect the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of
sanitary sewer discharges to the sewer system. Under the proposed policy, the District will only
accept certain types of dry season urban runoff during the period of April 15 to October 31 of
each year. In summary, the proposed policy includes the following provisions to:
• Require the applicant to exclude storm runoff during wet weather events;
• Require the applicant to evaluate other disposal options and implement pollution prevention
measures;
• Require-the applicant to guarantee that the District receives payment of all monies due for
the collection, treatment and disposal of dry season urban runoff;
• Authorize ·staff to deny the request and to not issue a discharge permit if such issuance
adverseJy affects the District's operations;
• Require the applicant to indemnify and hold the District harmless from all liabilities; and
• Authorize staff to take enforcement actions, including termination of the discharge if full
compliance with the conditions of the District's Ordinance and discharge permit are not met.
CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED POLICY
Although the proposed policy contains provisions to protect the District's operations and enable
the District to ensure compliance with all the regulatory requirements, there are concerns the
staff has encountered which, due to lack of information at this time, cannot be fully addressed.
• Concern: The types and levels of all pollutants of concern such as pesticides contained in
urban run off are unknown at this time. Therefore, the possible impact of accepting the dry
season urban runoff discharge to sewer and on the District's effluent is not fully known.
Response: There are provisions in the proposed policy to require the discharger to
periodically monitor its discharge into the sewer system and to take corrective measures to
control or eliminate the pollutants of concern or to reduce the loading to the sewer system.
The proposed policy also includes provisions authorizing staff to take enforcement actions
including termination of the discharge.
Page 3 of 3
March 27, 2000
• Concern: At this time, the District cannot accurately project the future collective volume of
the dry season urban runoff discharges to the sewer system. The District also has limited
existing and future system capacity in the collection, treatment and disposal facilities.
Therefore, depending upon the future collective volume of these types of discharges, the
District may not have an adequate system capacity to accommodate the future volume of
the urban runoff discharged to the District's sewerage facilities without substantial expansion
of sewerage facilities.
Response: Today. the estimated total flow from Huntington Beach and the two developers
is about 1.2 MGO. Future runoff volume may increase to 10 MGD from the potential
applicants in the District's jurisdiction. This volume is about 4 percent of the District's total
influent of 245 MGD. The District believes that there is adequate overall system capacity to
accommodate this volume. Moreover, there are provisions in the proposed policy to require
the discharger to implement pollution prevention including recycling, reuse and reduction in
the volume of the discharge. In addition, the proposed policy authorizes the staff to deny the
issuance of a permit and terminate the discharge or require additional waste management
facilities to be installed by the discharger if the discharge threatens to adversely impact the
District's facilities.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE POLICY
If this policy is adopted, to ensure that there would not be any recognizable adverse impact on
the District's sewerage facilities, staff will commence close monitoring of the urban runoff
discharges to the sewer system ·and accumulate quality and quantity data currently not
available. After sufficient information is obtained over the next few years, staff will revisi't the
provisions of the policy and will recommend necessary adjustments to conform to the findings.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the attached Resolution No. OCSD 00-_
which ing1Jdes the proposed Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff Into the
Orange County Sanitation District Sewerage System. If the Board of Directors adopts this
policy, staff further recommends that the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations, which is
currently under review by staff, include in the next revision the elements of the policy adopted by
the Board of Directors.
MTL:lvw
H:\wp.dta\ts\3590\talebi\Agenda for runoff.doc
l AD HOC CO MM ITTEE
AGE NDA REPO RT
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services
Originator: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager
SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
6/14/00
Item Number Item Number
7.A.
This is for information only. Staff anticipates that the issues of urban runoff diversion
funding and policies will be discussed in two or three (perhaps as many as four)
meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee over the next 30 to 60 days. Staff will provide an
increasing array of information in an iterative process that, hopefully, leads to
recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee to the Board of Directors through the
Steering Committee.
SUMMARY
Dry weather urban runoff diversions to the District's sanitary sewer system are
underway. There are a number of them in Huntington Beach. There is one in Newport
Beach. There are others proposed in the Bolsa Chica and Crystal Cove areas of the
County. We anticipate that others will be proposed in our portions of our service area
during the next several years.
The Board has adopted a policy for accepting these diversions. Staff has been working
with the County of Orange, the Cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and land developers for the last year, to develop
sensible practices for protecting public health from the impacts of dry weather urban
runoff. There is wide spread community, business and institutional support for keeping
Orange County's beaches open for recreational uses. Our challenge is to develop
policies and practices that will achieve this objective for the least possible long-term
cost to the rate payers in Orange County.
Two major questions remain unanswered. How large a fee should the District charge
and who should pay the fee? These questions were considered by the May 2000
Steering Committee. It became clear to the Steering Committee that arriving at the best
answers to these questions is not easy. For this reason, the Steering Committee asked
the Board Chairman to form an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the broad policy
implications that a fee implies. The Steering Committee recommended that the Ad
Hoc Committee evaluate the policy and financial issues associated with urban runoff
diversions, and make recommendations to the Board of Directors via the Steering
Committee.
The Board Chairman has selected a committee of six board members:
C:ITEMP\Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Agenda Form 6-00.dot
Revised: 8/10/98 Page 1
• to discuss the wide range of options that are available to the Sanitation
District Board of Directors, and
• to develop recommendations that best meet the long-term interests of the
District and the broad range of community interests that occur within our
service area.
The fees that may be charged will be dependent upon what operational and capital
costs can be assigned to the water that is diverted into our system. There are a number
of technical assumptions that will underpin this determination. Staff will describe these
assumptions to the Ad Hoc Committee at this and future meetings.
The decision about who pays will rest upon such things as whose runoff water is it, who
is most responsible for the contaminated condition of the runoff, who accrues the
benefits of the improved public health protection and who is ready and willing to pay.
As you will discover, the answers to these questions are not always straightforward.
They are further complicated by secondary issues such as incentivizing best-
management practices, limiting access to our sanitary system, and maintaining
consistent compliance with the terms and conditions of our ocean discharge permit.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
To be reported later.
BUDGET IMPACT
D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: )
D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. D This item has not been budgeted.
[XI Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
See attached information.
ALTERNATIVES
To be described later.
CEQA FINDINGS
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report -Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
H:\wp.dta\ls\3590\lalebi\Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Agenda Form 6-00.dol
Revised: 8/10/98 Page2
June 8, 2000
STAFF REPORT
Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Diversion Policy and Financing
BACKGROUND
In the past, the District has managed its facilities to prevent the discharge of urban runoff and storm water
to the sewer system. The results of last summer's Huntington Beach closure investigation suggested that
the dry season urban runoff may have caused the shoreline contamination, which led us in a new
direction. As a result, the District agreed to reroute the dry weather urban runoff from four pump stations
in the City of Huntington Beach to the sewer system in late August 1999.
In December 1999, the Board of Directors approved an interim policy for acceptance of dry season urban
runoff to the sewer system on a temporary basis. Shortly after adoption of the interim policy, the District
received two additional requests seeking the District's approval to s.ewer dry season urban runoff on a
long-term basis from proposed housing developments in Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. These
requests were prompted by the California Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board
due to potential water quality impacts and beach closures that could result from the direct discharge of
this runoff.
In April 2000, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. OCSD 00-04 (attached} for acceptance of
dry season urban runoff into the District's sewer system on a long-term basis. The intent of the resolution
was based on the fact that: 1} the acceptance of the dry season urban runoff was appropriate to minimize
adverse water quality environmental impacts, and 2) there was an immediate need to adopt a long-term
policy to accommodate the public need. The provisions of the resolution also intended to protect the
District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary wastewater to the sewer
system. The resolution includes the following provisions:
• Requires applicant to obtain a discharge permit;
• Requires exclusion of storm runoff during wet weather events;
• Requires evaluation of other disposal options;
• Requires guarantee that the District receives payment of all monies due;
• Authorizes denial of discharge request if it adversely affects the District's operations;
• Requires applicant to indemnify and hold the District harmless from all liabilities; and
• Authorizes enforcement actions, if full compliance is not met.
As mentioned above, the resolution requires that the applicant "pay all applicable fees and charges
including permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges and non-compliance fees". At the
OMTS meeting in April 2000, while approving the adoption of the urban runoff policy, the Board of
Directors directed the staff to develop a fee and charge schedule for the dry season urban runoff
discharges to the District's sewer facilities.
In May 2000, staff provided the Steering Committee five alternatives (attached} for assessing fees for dry
season urban runoff discharges. In summary, the alternatives are:
Daily Charges $/MGD Total Daily
Alternative Description Connection Fee User Fee Charges
$/MGD
1 Class I industry rates, including 5% interest $661 $321 $982
2 Class I industry rates, excluding interest $337 $321 $658
3 Class I industry O/M (user) rates only --$321 $321
4 Divide budget O/M by budget flow $591 $585 $1,176
5 Same as dewatering permit $682 $1,433 $2,115
Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Policy and Financing
Page2
June 8, 2000
After a discussion of these alternatives and related issues, the Board of Directors recommended that an
Ad Hoc Committee be formed to evaluate the impacts of such discharges and make recommendations to
the Steering and FAHR committees for adoption of this policy.
ONGOING DIVERSION ACTIVITIES
Since August 1999, the District has accepted dry season urban runoff from nine pump stations in the City
of Huntington Beach and from one pump station in Newport Beach (Newport Dunes}. In addition, the
District has received requests from housing developers and the County of Orange to discharge dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system. The following provides a summary of current and proposed
urban runoff discharges to the District's sewer system:
Applicant/Permittee Location Number of Daily Discharge Status Diversions Vol,ume (MGD)
Huntington Beach Huntington Beach 9 2.0-2.5 Discharging
Newport Beach Newport Dunes 1 0.1-0.2 Discharging
Irvine Company Newport Beach 1 0.1-0.2 Proposed
Hearthside Homes Huntington Beach 1 0.1-0.2 Proposed
County of Orange Huntington Beach 3 2.5-3.0 Proposed
4.8~6.1
Currently, the County of Orange is seeking the District's authorization to divert runoff of about 0.5 MGD
from the Santa Ana River channel upstream of Talbert Avenue into the District's sewer system as early as
mid-June 2000.
CURRENT ISSUES
There are several factors that may have adverse or unknown impacts on the District's facilities and
resources:
1. We do not have historical data on the quality (specifically pesticides) of the dry season urban
runoff to determine the impact of such discharges on the District's final effluent and permit
compliance.
2. Depending on the long-term/short-term acceptance of the urban runoff to the sewer system, the
future and projected urban run-off flows cannot be estimated accurately. Therefore, the impact on
the District's strategic plan projections of treatment capacity needs and the Groundwater
Replenishment System cannot be determined at this time.
3. Depending upon the total volume and quality of the urban runoff discharged to the sewer, the
charges and staff resources needed to handle and manage such discharges may be significant.
4. To ensure equity among dischargers in the District's jurisdiction and recover the cost incurred to
treat and manage the urban runoff flows, a policy regarding the applicable fees and charges
needs to be formulated.
MT
H:\wp.dta\ts\3590\talebi\staff report for urban runoff fees.doc
RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 00-04
ESTABLISHING DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF POLICY
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ESTABLISHING DRY SEASON
URBAN RUNOFF POLICY -----
WHEREAS, certain types of dry season urban runoff create public health and/or
environmental problems which are infeasible to economically or practically control; and,
WHEREAS, THE Orange County Sanitation District ("District") has available
limited system capacity in its collection, treatment and disposal facilities which may
allow the District to accept certain dry season urban runoff discharges without adversely
affecting the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary
sewer discharges; and
WHEREAS, the District does not have system capacity available to allow wet
season discharges to the District's facilities; and
WHEREAS, District has developed a Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy to address
certain environmental concerns associated with dry season runoff; and,
WHEREAS, District may accept dry season urban runoff, on a permanent basis,
provided that the discharge occurs in full and complete compliance with the terms of the
District's Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation
District,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1 : That the following Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy is established
as a District Policy:
POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM
The Orange County Sanitation District ("District") may accept surface urban runoff into
the sewerage system only during the period of April 15 through October 31 of each year
("dry season urban runoff') and only if the following requirements are met:
1
utions\2000\00-
A. Requirements for Obtaining Permission to Discharge
1. The dry season urban runoff diversion to the sewerage system shall address a
public health or environmental problem associated with the runoff discharge that
cannot be otherwise economically or practically controlled;
2. The dry season urban runoff diversion structure shall be designed and other
necessary provisions shall be implemented to exclude storm runoff during wet
weather. The diversion structure shall be equipped with a lockable shut-off
device, satisfactory to the District, and to which the District shall be provided
access at all times;
3. The permit applicant shall consider and evaluate the feasibility of other disposal
alternatives (i.e., discharging into storm drains, reuse and reclamation of the
runoff, etc.) for the discharge of the dry season urban runoff. The permit
applicant shall submit to the District a report, satisfactory to the District describing
the evaluation of each disposal alternative, and demonstrating why each
alternative is not economically or practically feasible to dispose of the proposed
dry season urban runoff in lieu of sewer discharge;
4. The permit applicant's proposed diversion system shall prevent debris or any
other pollutants of concern from entering the District's sewerage system. The
permit applicant shall submit design drawings and an operations and
maintenance plan for the proposed dry season diversion structure which shall be
sufficient to establish that all District requirements will be met to prevent pass
through of and/or interference with the District's sewerage facilities. The
diversion system shall be capable of measuring and recording on a daily basis
the flow discharged to the sewerage system;
5. The permit applicant shall submit best management practices and pollution
prevention strategies designed to minimize or eliminate dry season urban runoff.
More stringent practices and strategies may be required depending on the nature
of the anticipated discharge;
6. The permit applicant shall submit to the District a proposed method to guarantee
the existence of an enforceable mechanism to ensure that the District receives
payment for all monies due pursuant to this policy for as tong as the permit
exists. No permit application shall be complete without such an enforceable
mechanism, satisfactory to the District in its sole discretion. This mechanism
shall be designed to limit any administrative burden on the District;
7. The General Manager, or his designee, may impose additional requirements as
may be appropriate to reduce the burden on the District's collection, treatment
and disposal facilities;
8. Collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary sewer discharges remain the
2
utions\2000\00-
District's primary function. No additional dry season urban runoff permits shall be
issued if the General Manager, or his designee, determines that such issuance
may, alone or in conjunction with other permits, adversely affect the District's
primary function;
9. Permit applicants shall pay a permit fee in an amount established by the District
prior to the issuance of any permit;
10. Prior to commencement of discharge of the dry season urban runoff to the
sewerage system, in accordance with the policies and procedures set by the
District, the permit applicant must apply for and receive a Wastewater Discharge
Permit from the District. The District may require that the permit applicant enter
into an agreement setting forth the terms under which the dry season discharge
is authorized in addition to or in lieu of issuance of the Wastewater Discharge
Permit; and
11 . The permit applicant shall indemnify and hold the District harmless from all
liability associated with the dry season urban runoff to which the permit and/or
agreement apply. The terms of the indemnification shall be in a form satisfactory
to District's General Counsel;
B. Requirements After Granting Permission to Discharge
1 . The quality and quantity of the discharge shall meet the conditions, provisions or
limitations contained in the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations
{Ordinance No. OCSD-01 )*;
2. The permittee shall conduct self-monitoring for the pollutants of concern as direct
by the District to ensure compliance with the terms, conditions and limits set forth
in the discharge permit and/or agreement and the District's Ordinances. Unless
otherwise directed, the ·permittee shall conduct self-monitoring of the discharge
on a quarterly basis. The result of all self-monitoring shall be submitted to the
District, upon request, but in no event later than forty-five (45) days following the
completion of sample analysis. The permittee shall monitor the flow and submit
reports documenting the flow discharged as directed by the District;
3. In the event that the quality or quantity of the dry season urban runoff discharge
to the sewerage system does not meet the conditions, provisions, or limitations
set forth in the discharge permit/agreement or Ordinance No. OCSD-01, the
permittee shall take immediate action to correct the problem{ s) to ensure that full
compliance is met. The District may take enforcement action for any violation of
the terms of the permit and/or the District's Ordinances, including termination of
the discharge, in accordance. with the provisions of Ordinance No. OCSD-01;
• Any reference in this policy to any Di~tjrict Ordinance, policy or permit shall include any subsequent
amendments, modificatil)ns, re.risions c:;r successors to such ordinance, policy or permit.
3
utions\2000\00-
4. In accordance with Ordinance Nos. OCSD-01, OCSD-10, and OCSD-11, and
any other current or future District Ordinances or policies, the permittee shall pay
all the applicable fees and charges including but not limited to permit fees, sewer
use charges, capital facilities charges, and noncompliance fees. Failure to pay
any fees in a timely manner shall be cause for termination of the permit and
discharge;
5. The permittee shall provide District's employees with access to the diversion
location and all areas from which and through which runoff originates and/or
flows, during all reasonable hours, which shall include any time when a discharge
to the sewer system may be occurring, for purposes of inspection, monitoring,
and verifying compliance with the discharge permiUagreement or the District's
Ordinances;
6. The permittee shall have complete responsibility for the construction, operation
and maintenance of the diversion facility or any other associated facilities, for
ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions of the discharge
permit/agreement and the District's Ordinances, and for paying all the applicable
charges and fees for the entire duration of the discharge to the District's
sewerage system;
7. All District administrative costs related to the implementation of this policy shall
be borne by the permittee;
8. If the District determines that the dry season runoff, alone or in conjunction with
other discharges, is adversely affecting or threatening to adversely affect the
District's collection, treatment and/or disposal facilities, the District shall so notify
the permittee who shall immediately cease all such discharge to the sewerage
system. The District may, in its sole discretion, allow the continued discharge
provided that the permittee installs, operates and maintains additional facilities as
the District determines are appropriate to ensure that the dry season runoff does
not, alone or in conjunction with other discharges, adversely affect or threaten to
adversely affect the District's collection treatment and/or disposal facilities; and
9. Except as expressly authorized by this policy or a District Ordinance, no urban
runoff shall be discharged directly or indirectly into the District's facilities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held April 26, 2000.
4
utions\2000~0-
STEERING COMMil lE
AGENDA REPORT
Orange County Sanitation District
FROM: Gary Streed, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: URBAN RUNOFF CHARGES
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
This item will be discussed at the June FAHR Committee meeting.
SUMMARY
Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir.
05/24/00 N/A
ber Item Number
When the final Urban Runoff Policy was considered by the OMTS Committee in April,
they deferred the charges and fees to the FAHR Committee. Five alternatives are
discussed in the Staff Report.
PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
N/A
BUDGET IMPACT
D This item has been budgeted. (Line item: } D This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds.
[g'.] This item has not been budgeted.
D Not applicable (information item)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
See Staff Report.
ALTERNATIVES
See Staff Report.
CEQA FINDINGS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Staff Report
2. April 5, 2000 Agenda Report to OMTS
3. Resolution OCSD-00-04 Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
llradonldata11wp.dta\fin\210\crane\STEERING COMMITTEEIARUrban Runoff.doc
Revised: 8120/98 Page 1
,,
May 15, 2000
STAFF REPORT
Alternative Fees for Dry Season Urban Runoff
In April 2000, the Board adopted Resolution No. OCSD-00-04, Establishing Dry
Season Urban Runoff Policy. This Resolution requires a Wastewater Discharge
Permit be issued by the District in accordance with all applicable Ordinances. It
also requires the permittee to "pay all the applicable fees and charges including
but not limited to permit fees, sewer use charges, capital facilities charges and
non-compliance fees." The exact type of Permit to be issued is not specified.
Two types of Wastewater Discharge Permits may be appropriate under the
current regulations, or a new type of Permit may be required. A Class I Permit is
required for "any user who discharges wastewater that averages 25,000 gallons
per day or more of regulated process wastewater, or is determined by the
General Manager to have a reasonable potential to adversely affecting the
Districts' operation or for violating pretreatment standard, local limit or discharge
requirements ... " Certainly this language applies to dry weather urban runoff.
Were it not for the health risks and beach water standard violations, we would not
even be considering the issue. A Special Purpose Discharge Permit is required
for the discharge of "unpolluted water, storm runoff, or groundwater. .. " This
may also apply.
What should be charged?
The fee structure is different for each of these Permits, and a different structure
could be developed for a new type of Permit. Class I users pay a fee based
upon actual flow and strength of their wastewater discharge. The rates per
million gallons and pounds of BOD or SS are adopted by Ordinance. These
rates are used in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on the attached schedule. BOD and SS
concentrations and pounds are expected to be minimal for urban runoff, resulting
in a user fee of $321 .40 per million gallons.
Class I users who discharge more than 25,000 gallons per day are called
"Significant Commercial-Industrial Users" (SCIU). These SCI Us are subject to a
Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charge (SCFCC) based upon actual
use when their flow increases 25% or 25,000 gallons per day. Because the initial
Capital Facilities Capacity Charge for a regular non-residential user is calculated
based upon the square feet of the building connecting to the system, there is no
method to calculate an accurate charge in these cases. The SCFCC, however,
presents a reasonable Alternative. The SCFCC could be calculated using a zero
mgd baseline.
Alternative Fees for [ Weather UR
Page 2
May 15, 2000
Alternative 1 includes the SCFCC calculation, in accordance with the adopted
Ordinance. The capital, connection or SCFCC rate would be $660.95 per million
gallons. This Alternative includes a 5% cost of money charge, since the facilities
used must be constructed before the fees are received. The operating user fee
is consistent in each of the three Alternatives.
Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 except the cost of money, or interest,
component has been removed. This reduces the capital portion of the fee to
$336.60 per million gallons.
Alternative 3 eliminates the capital portion of the charge altogether, leaving only
the $321 .40 per million gallons operating user fee. Applying this Alternative may
require a change to the CFCC Ordinance. In order to select this Alternative, the
Directors would have to find that there is adequate capacity in the sewerage
system, during dry weather, for this wastewater. In this case, one could conclude
that since no additional facilities are required, then no CFCC should be
assessed. This is the lowest cost Alternative, and is consistent with the 'interim
Special Purpose Discharge Permit issued to Huntington Beach in October 1999.
Alternative 4 is an entirely different approach to determining the fees. This
method allocates the operating budget and the 20-year capital requirements to
flow alone. No costs or expenses are allocated to BOD or SS. This Alternative
provides higher unit costs than Alternative 1, 2 or 3, and should be discarded.
Alternative 5 treats Dry Season Urban Runoff as any other Special Purpose
Discharge Permit. The adopted Ordinance specifies a charge for use to cover all
costs of the District for providing sewerage service and monitoring shall be
established by the General Manager. Historically, this has been an operating
user fee of 1.5 times the "Class Ill" user rate. The Class Ill rate typically reflected
domestic waste concentrations. District policy is to discourage these types of
permits because the flow generally is "clean water" which does not require
treatment and should be discharged to a storm drain, not to a sewage treatment
plant. The operating user fee is the highest of any Alternative. The Ordinance is
not clear about a CFCC for this type of user. Potential calculations could be the
same as presented in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Another method of calculating the
CFCC would be to allocate the single-family dwelling unit fee to assumed gallons
per day. This method is presented in this Alternative. Because the operating
user fee is so high, any of the CFCC Alternatives result in this Alternative having
the highest total rate. It is shown as a comparison to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and
to show the change that results from another provision of the existing adopted
Ordinances.
Alternative Fees for' · Weather UR
Page 3
May 15, 2000
Who should pay?
Once the appropriate rates for collection, treatment and disposal of Dry Season
Urban Runoff are established, we must determine who should pay. Alternatives
include the OCSD ratepayers, the agency that owns the connecting facility, the
Flood Control District, and the County of Orange.
The OCSD ratepayers are charged for sewer service. The Strategic Plan and
the operations budget are based upon projected wastewater flows. Facilities
have not been planned for urban runoff. The April staff report to OMTS and the
Board that accompanied the Resolution establishing a Dry Season Urban Runoff
Policy identified a potential flow of 20 mgd. More information is needed to know
the precise financial impact of this additional treatment and disposal, but it is
reasonable to conclude that this 4% increase in flow could require a 4% increase
in user fees. Currently, that would amount to about $3 per year per SFR. In the
event that property taxes are diverted away from the OCSD, perhaps taxes
sufficient to meet this non-sewage related regional need could be retained.
The agency that owns the facility connecting to the sewer normally pays the fees
and charges. This would be the preferred Alternative, if all of the runoff
originates within that agency's service area, or if costs could be recovered from
outside sources. ----~---1v~ ~ oJ ~~~~
e Flood Control Distr" Is responsible for flood control channels and their
d1 ar e tot n. Runoff is intended to be collected by the flood control
system. This seems to be the logical choice for responsibility for the urban runoff
fees as well. The Flood Control District could put a fee on the property tax bill as
a separate line item, similar to our user fee. The fee could be based upon
acreage and would be approximately $9 per acre or $2 per SFR. ~----
The County of Orange may be essentially the same as t Flood Control District.
Both provide services to areas larger than the OCSD. Botti C01rtte---8e.\LellOP-..a.J:>lal
and a program for the entire County. The County Board of Supervisors has
already shown interest in this issue. They may have the most diverse and
flexible sources of income to meet this critical environmental need.
GGS:lc
H:\wp.dta\fin\21 0\crane\STEERING COMMITTEE\UrbanRunoff.doc
Attachments:
1. Alternative Fees for Urban Runoff Pump Stations
2. Staff Report -Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff
3. Resolution OCSD-04 Establishing Dry Season Urban Runoff Policy
05/12/2000
Alt Description
1 Class I rates incl 5% interest
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
2 Class I rates without interest
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
3 Class I O & M rates only
flow
bod @ 20mg/L assumed concentration
ss @ 50mg/L assumed concentration
4 Divide budget O&M by budget flow
Divide 2020 capital invest by total flow for 30 years
5 Same as dewatering permit, 1.5 times "Class 111"
SFR Connection Fee on per gallon basis
G:\excel.dta\fin\21 0\streed\run off fees
Alternative Fees for Urban Runoff Pump Stations
Capital and O&M Costs
Charge per Million Gallons
A B C D
OCSD Daily OCSD Daily Daily
Unit of Measure Conn Rate Use Rate Total/unit
per gal per day 0.0005700 0.00021931 0.0007893
per lb per day 0.1446100 0.18045000 0.3250600
per lb per day 0.1602500 0.17265000 0.3329000
per gal per day 0.0002900 0.00021931 0.0005093
per lb per day 0.0741000 0.18045000 0.2545500
per lb per day 0.0821100 0.17265000 0.2547600
per gal per day 0.0000000 0.00021931 0.0002193
per lb per day 0.0000000 0.18045000 0.1804500
per lb per day 0.0000000 0.17265000 0.1726500
per gal per day 0.000584729 0.0005847
per gal per day 0.0005914 0.0005914
per gal per day 0.00143329 0.0014333
per gal per day 0.000682224 0.0006822
4:21 PM
E F G H
Daily Daily Daily Total Daily
Units Conn Fee Use Fee Char~e
1,000,000 570.00 219.31 789.31
167 24.12 30.10 54.2?
417 66.82 72.00 138.l
660.95 321.40 982.35
1,000,000 290.00 219.31 509.31
167 12.36 30.10 42.46
417 34.24 72.00 106.23
336.60 321.40 658.00
1,000,000 -219.31 219.31
167 -30.10 30.10
417 -72.00 72.00 -321 .40 321.40
1,000,000 -· 584.73 584.r
1,000,000 591.45 -591.45
591.45 584.73 1,176.18
1,000,000 -1,433.29 1,433.29
1,000,000 682.22 -682.22
682.22 1,433.29 2,1 15.51
One Rate
March 27, 2000
STAFF REPORT
POLICY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DRY SEASON URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWERAGE SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Results of the Huntington Beach closure investigation suggested that the dry season urban
runoff discharging to the Pacific Ocean through the Talbert Channel may have caused or
contributed to the cause of the shoreline contamination that occurred in the summer of 1999.
As a result, the District agreed to reroute the dry weather urban runoff from four pump stations
in the City of Huntington Beach to the sewer system in August 1999. Historically, the District
has managed its facilities to prevent the discharge of dry season urban runoff and storm water
to the sewer system. Therefore, it has never been included in the District's mission nor practice
to accept discharge of this type of waste into the sewerage facilities. The events of last summer
at Huntington Beach are leading us in a new direction.
The District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations regulates all discharges into the District's
sewerage facilities. These regulations do not currently include a provision to authorize any dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system. On December 15, 1999, the Board of Directors
approved an interim policy for acceptance and discharge of dry season urban runoff to the
sewer system on a temporary basis. Since the adoption of the interim policy, the District has
received requests from The Irvine Company and Hearthside Homes, Inc. to discharge dry
season urban runoff to the sewer system from proposed housing developments in Newport
Beach and Huntington Beach. These requests were prompted based on discharge requirements
of the California Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board due to potential
water quality impacts and beach closures that could result from the direct discharge of this
runoff.
Since the District's interim policy was adopted for a period of only one year, regulatory agencies
questioned the developers about the time period during which the District would accept the dry
season urban runoff. The California Coastal Commission has indicated that without a
permanent policy in place to accept the dry season urban runoff in lieu of direct discharge into
the ocean, permission to construct will not be granted. Based on the available testing results
and information, the bacteria counts in dry season urban runoff have the potential to exceed
Ocean Water Protection Standards by 10-20 times. The total dry season urban runoff from
each developer is estimated at 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD), and the levels of known toxics
such as heavy metals are similar to those found in domestic sewage. Moreover, the bacteria
counts in the runoff are significantly lower than the typical influent bacteria counts we now
receive in the District's influent.
District's staff proposes to revise the interim policy and establish a long-term resolution for
disposal of dry season urban runoff to the sewer system because: 1 ) the acceptance of the dry
season urban runoff is fundamentally appropriate to minimize the possible adverse
environmental impact, and 2) there is an immediate need to adopt a long-term policy to
accommodate the public needs.
Policy for Acceptance of Ory Weather Urban Runoff
Page 2 of 3
March 27, 2000
OTHER AGENCIES' PRACTICES
The District has contacted six neighboring wastewater agencies to research their practice of
accepting urban runoff discharges to their sewer facilities. Based on the information obtained,
none of the agencies has established any written policy, fees or characteristic requirements
regarding dry season urban runoff. They are accepting urban runoff or storm water when it is
contaminated. on an occasional, case-by-case basis. The City of Los Angeles is already
accepting dry season urban runoff from two areas (Malibu and Santa Monica) without any
policy, discharge requirements or fees in place.
PROPOSED POLICY
The District's staff believes that the acceptance of the dry season urban runoff to the sewer
system will reduce the levels of contaminants along the Southern California shoreline and
enhance public health and environmental quality.
The revised policy includes many of the same provisions contained in the interim policy and new
provisions to protect the District's primary function of collection, treatment and disposal of
sanitary sewer discharges to the sewer system. Under the proposed policy, the District will only
accept certain types of dry season urban runoff during the period of April 15 to October 31 of
each year. In summary, the proposed policy includes the following provisions to:
• Require the applicant to exclude storm runoff during wet weather events;
• Require the applicant to evaluate other disposal options and implement pollution prevention
measures;
• Req~ire the applicant to guarantee that the District receives payment of all monies due for
the collection, treatment and disposal of dry season urban runoff;
• Authorize ·staff to deny the request and to not issue a discharge permit if such issuance
adversely affects the District's operations;
• Require the applicant to indemnify and hold the District harmless from all liabilities; and
• Authorize staff to take enforcement actions, including termination of the discharge if full
compliance with the conditions of the District's Ordinance and discharge permit are not met.
CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED POLICY
Although the proposed policy contains provisions to protect the District's operations and enable
the District to ensure compliance with all the regulatory requirements, there are concerns the
staff has encountered which, due to lack of information at this time, cannot be fully addressed.
• Concern: The types and levels of all pollutants of concern such as pesticides contained in
urban run off are unknown at this time. Therefore, the possible impact of accepting the dry
season urban runoff discharge to sewer and on the District's effluent is not fully known.
Response: There are provisions in the proposed policy to require the discharger to
periodically monitor its discharge into the sewer system and to take corrective measures to
control or eliminate the pollutants of concern or to reduce the loading to the sewer system.
The proposed policy also includes provisions authorizing staff to take enforcement actions
including termination of the discharge.
Page 3 of 3
March 27, 2000
• Concern: At this time, the District cannot accurately project the future collective volume of
the dry season urban runoff discharges to the sewer system. The District also has limited
existing and future system capacity in the collection, treatment and disposal facilities.
Therefore, depending upon the future collective volume of these types of discharges, the
District may not have an adequate system capacity to accommodate the future volume of
-the urban runoff discharged to the District's sewerage facilities without substantial expansion
of sewerage facilities.
v.,
Response: Today, the estimated total flow from Huntington Beach and the two developers
is about 1.2 MGD. Future runoff volume may increase to 10 MGD from the potential
applicants in the District's jurisdiction. This volume is about 4 percent of the District's total
influent of 245 MGD. The District believes that there is adequate overall system capacity to
accommodate this volume. Moreover, there are provisions in the proposed policy to require
the discharger to implement pollution prevention including recycling, reuse and reduction in
the volume of the discharge. In addition, the proposed policy authorizes the staff to deny the
issuance of a permit and terminate the discharge or require additional waste management
facilities to be installed by the discharger if tt,e discharge threatens to adversely impact the
District's facilities.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE POLICY
If this policy is adopted, to ensure that there would not be any recognizable adverse impact on
the District's sewerage facilities, staff will commence close monitoring of the urban runoff
discharges to the sewer system -and accumulate quality and quantity data currently not.
available. After sufficient information is obtained over the next few years, staff will revisi't the
provisions of the policy and will recommend necessary adjustments to conform to the findings.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the attached Resolution No. OCSD 00-_
which ingµdes the proposed Policy for Acceptance of Dry Season Urban Runoff Into the
Orange County Sanitation District Sewerage System. If the Board of Directors adopts this
policy, staff further recommends that the District's Wastewater Discharge Regulations, which is
currently under review by staff, include in the next revision the elements of the policy adopted by
the Board of Directors.
MTL:lvw
H:\wp.dta\ts\3590\talebi\Agenda for runoff.doc